On Sep 7, 2:29Â am, "Mark Earnest"
yahoo.com> wrote:> "kevirwin"
comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ffabcb76-1ae7-4ebf-abfc-52ba102a1c33@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 7, 12:49 am, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> You know, when I think of a library branch, I think of all knowledge
>> being divided into branches.
>
>> At the twigs would be the most recently attained facts.
>
>> At the small branches more basic facts,
>
>> At large branches even more basic facts,
>
>> Until you get to the trunk, which provides nourishment for all the rest.
>
>> Supposedly, each fact fits somewhere in the tree.
>
>> At the twigs are the assertions.
>
>> They are proven by more basic assertions.
>
>> Which are proven by still more basic assertions.
>
>> Until you get to the trunk, which supports all the assertions.
>
>> The trunk facts are self proving, and need no further premise.
>
>> So, some facts need no proving, or the trunk could not exist.
>
>> How could we ever encounter such a fact, in this world where
>> there are no absolutes?
>
> so what's up with the roots????
>
> Maybe the roots are how the trunk derives nutrition to formulate the
> most basic, ultimate facts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Uh, your reply was easier to digest than Immortalist's...Ya' gotta
love that guy as a source of information though...I think he'd be a
forest (even if I can't see the trees)
--Just trying to perpetuate the metaphor...
K e v
